On Feb 1, 2006, at 1:18 AM, Anish Karmarkar wrote: > >>> However, given what Mark observed, I suspect >>> that we might do well to specify that at a minimum, the SOAP >>> processing w/r/t SOAP headers MUST be performed before any >>> response is generated, so as to ensure that if a mU fault is >>> generated, it can be transmitted on the HTTP response (with a 500). >> Except I might legitimately send back a 202 Accepted following >> securing the message in a database or putting it onto a reliable >> message queue, well before any SOAP processing has taken place. > > +1 > That's one alternative. > Or In the WSRX case, I might send back a 202 with a WSRX ack after > processing all the WSRX headers and storing the messages in a DB, > but before processing other non-WSRX headers. > That idea trouble me a bit, the SOAP processing model is all or nothing, allowing some headers to be processed and others to be ignored (at least for mU processing) diverges from the spec as I read it. Marc. > >> For my money the ability to send a RX ACK in a 202 is interesting >> and falls well within RFC2616's 202, but presumably would require >> SOAP processing generating MU faults etc, so would require more RX >> specific instruction in such a note building upon Dave's one-way >> note. >> Paul > --- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com> Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Wednesday, 1 February 2006 14:43:14 UTC